Do you agree that apathy amongst the electorate a serious threat to democracy?

Yes, I agree.

This problem was raised in my own country and everyone agreed that the
low presence of the electorate is a major concern for our young
democracy. (I live in Romania.)

The fundament of representative democracy is the vote of the Majority
indeed. But is it the real majority when only 30 or 40% of the
population actually  votes. The majority is at home. And the majority
says in fact that no party deserves to rule.

Most politicians agree that presence is an issue, and ask people to go
to vote. But when people refuse to hope for the better, almost nothing
can be done. People don't go to vote mainly because they are tired of
promises that are never kept. They feel that nothing changes. They
feel that the change of the governing party is not a solution. They
prefer to concentrate on other, more personal matters.

Solutions to low electorate presence are searched. Making it easy to
vote seems to increase voter presence.

Some radical measures are also presented, like the change to a "direct
democracy" where people vote directly the law. This is in fact the
real democracy (as the antic Greeks imagined and used, hundreds of
years before the birth of Jesus).

These said, just follow the links below for more information:

The Globalist Research Center - Does U.S. voter turnout differ along
lines of income?
http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/GlobalistPapers/2000/10-27-00.shtml

CNN.com - Why Americans don't vote -- and how that might change - by
By John Dean - FindLaw Columnist
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/11/columns/fl.dean.voters.02.11.07/

An article:
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/metameme/apathy.html

BBC News - Voter apathy: How can it be overcome?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1454000/1454438.stm

Guardian Unlimited Politics - Reversing voter apathy 
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/thinktanks/comment/0,10538,710475,00.html

The Timesizing Wire - Voter apathy
http://www.timesizing.com/2apathy.htm

TheDesertSun.com  - Focus Letter: Voter apathy is threat to democracy
http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories/opinion/1016497810.shtml

Guardian Unlimited - Netnews - Shaking up voter apathy with IT 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,617118,00.html

Sovereignty - DIRECT DEMOCRACY : Government of the People, by the
People, for the People - by Alistair McConnachie
 http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/dirdemoc.html

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia:
Democracy: http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761575112
Democracy in ancient Greece
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=1741501460&cid=78#p78
Democracy in US
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=1741500781&cid=2#p2


Google search terms:

"voter apathy" democracy
://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22voter+apathy%22+democracy
"electorate apathy" democracy
://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22electorate+apathy%22+democracy
electorate apathy threat democracy
://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=electorate+apathy+threat+democracy

I hope this will help you with your home work. :o)

If you need more info, please ask. I'd be happy to make you happy by
searching for more.

Regards

Although in many areas violence, censorship, and lack of education may
cause reduced voter turnout, we in North America don't normally have
to deal with these problems.

I would point (unscientifically, from my own observations) to two
major deterrents here.  First, it is difficult for the average citizen
to feel engaged in the process.  For those of us who are unable to
conscientiously endorse the platform of an individual party (more of
an issue for you in the States, where you have basically two choices)
there is little incentive to become party members. For those who do,
unless they are possessed of above average wealth, influence, or
personal ability, there is little opportunity to influence the process
of selecting a candidate.  The end result is that we are offered, as a
fait accompli, a choice between a limited number of
not-necessarily-palatable candidates.

My second point, deriving perhaps from the first, is that we have
become very cynical about the political process.  There is an implicit
assumption that the very willingness of an individual to stand for
public office indicates a degree of (at worst) corruption or (at best)
emotional neediness.  Certainly we have been treated to enough
buffoonery and unresponsiveness in our elected leaders to justify such
a conclusion.  It is difficult to imagine that impassioned rhetoric
like JFK's would receive a hearing in today's world.

I do not necessarily intend this to be an endorsement of such negative
attitudes.  I was rather upset to realize recently that my son's
initial impressions of the political process here in Canada have come
from satirical programs like Royal Canadian Air Farce and This Hour
Has 22 Minutes.  Unfortunately, it seems that our electorate does
reward blandness with success, and provides a disincentive for people
of strong views to seek office.

No particular point, here, just took the opportunity to vent a little.

>>But is it the real majority when only 30 or 40% of the
population actually  votes. The majority is at home. And the majority
says in fact that no party deserves to rule.<<

I have to question this conclusion. Surely the majority is "saying"
that they don't care which party or individual is elected; not that
none of them should be.

Researchers have known for decades that they don't have to poll %100
percent of a given population to obtain an accurate representative
sample of opinion. Assuming that the increase in the number of voters
would somehow change the outcome of an election is simplistic; more
than likely, the same percentages would emerge no matter how many
vote, once you're reached a sufficient representative sample size.

As for the subject heading of the question (as opposed to the question
itself), indifference may "breed" an initial tendancy to one extreme,
but the full extreme could never be reached via indifference. The
emerging extreme ITSELF will then affect the next election in terms of
the party platforms, the campaign issues, and the voter turnout. It's
a self-correcting cycle.

All this is just my opinion.